West Bromwich
resident Christopher Bourne had complained to the press watchdog
over a 4th December report by the local paper portraying him as a
“modern-day Scrooge” because he had purchased 30 Xbox 360s to sell
them on eBay, taking advantage of the pre-Christmas shortage of the
games consoles.
Bourne had spoken to the newspaper, but had refused to pose for
a picture, agreeing instead to let the paper take a picture of his
son with the Xboxes. However, the article was not only critical of
Bourne, it included his picture rather than his son's.
Bourne complained, arguing that the article was inaccurate and
misleading, and that the publication of the photo amounted to a
breach of a clause in the watchdog’s Code of Practice that
states:
- Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and
family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital
communications. Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into
any individual's private life without consent.
- It is unacceptable to photograph individuals in private places
without their consent private places being public or private
property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
The Press Complaints Commission dismissed the accuracy
complaint, on the grounds that the Sunday Mercury’s
characterisation of Bourne reflected its opinion of him – which it
was entitled to express – and that it was not really inaccurate in
its calculation of the profit he was likely to make from the
sales.
But the watchdog upheld the privacy complaint, agreeing that the
publication of the photo breached Bourne’s privacy.
“The editor had not denied that the complainant had refused
permission for his picture to be taken and published,” says the
ruling. “The complainant was in his own home – a place where he
clearly had a reasonable expectation of privacy – when the
photograph was taken. There would have had to have been a
convincing public interest defence for surreptitiously taking and
then publishing a picture of someone in their own home.”
In this case, said the Commission, the conduct of the Sunday
Mercury was not proportional to any public interest in publishing
the photo. Bourne had not “committed any crime or serious
impropriety or sought to mislead any of his potential customers,”
it said.
There was therefore limited public interest in ignoring Bourne’s
wishes not to be photographed, and what little there was did not
justify the privacy intrusion.
